243 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19544189)
1. Using chemical categories to fill data gaps in hazard assessment.
van Leeuwen K; Schultz TW; Henry T; Diderich B; Veith GD
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2009; 20(3-4):207-20. PubMed ID: 19544189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Publicly-accessible QSAR software tools developed by the Joint Research Centre.
Pavan M; Worth AP
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2008; 19(7-8):785-99. PubMed ID: 19061088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials.
EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials
Food Chem Toxicol; 2008 Mar; 46 Suppl 1():S2-70. PubMed ID: 18328408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Perspective of predictive toxicity assessment of in vivo repeated dose toxicity using structural activity relationship].
Ono A
Kokuritsu Iyakuhin Shokuhin Eisei Kenkyusho Hokoku; 2010; (128):44-9. PubMed ID: 21381395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Summary of the workshop on the power of aggregated toxicity data.
Woodall GM; Goldberg RB
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2008 Nov; 233(1):71-5. PubMed ID: 19013305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Chemical categories for health hazard identification: a feasibility study.
Rosenkranz HS; Cunningham AR
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2001 Jun; 33(3):313-8. PubMed ID: 11407934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. QSAR and chemometric approaches for setting water quality objectives for dangerous chemicals.
Vighi M; Gramatica P; Consolaro F; Todeschini R
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2001 Jul; 49(3):206-20. PubMed ID: 11440473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Balancing risks.
Kasamatsu T; Kohda K
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2006 Oct; 46(1):100-4. PubMed ID: 16843577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Application of QSARs in risk management of existing chemicals.
Verhaar HJ; van Leeuwen CJ; Bol J; Hermens JL
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 1994; 2(1-2):39-58. PubMed ID: 8790639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Modelling acute oral mammalian toxicity. 1. Definition of a quantifiable baseline effect.
Koleva YK; Cronin MT; Madden JC; Schwöbel JA
Toxicol In Vitro; 2011 Oct; 25(7):1281-93. PubMed ID: 21557997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Animal testing and alternative approaches for the human health risk assessment under the proposed new European chemicals regulation.
Höfer T; Gerner I; Gundert-Remy U; Liebsch M; Schulte A; Spielmann H; Vogel R; Wettig K
Arch Toxicol; 2004 Oct; 78(10):549-64. PubMed ID: 15170526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Alternative methods to safety studies in experimental animals: role in the risk assessment of chemicals under the new European Chemicals Legislation (REACH).
Lilienblum W; Dekant W; Foth H; Gebel T; Hengstler JG; Kahl R; Kramer PJ; Schweinfurth H; Wollin KM
Arch Toxicol; 2008 Apr; 82(4):211-36. PubMed ID: 18322675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Precision of estimates of an ADI (or TDI or PTWI).
Speijers GJ
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1999 Oct; 30(2 Pt 2):S87-93. PubMed ID: 10597619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Determining acute health hazard ratings in the absence of applicable toxicological data.
Simmons F; Quigley D; Freshwater D; Whyte H; Boada-Clista L; Laul JC
J Occup Environ Hyg; 2007 Nov; 4(11):841-7. PubMed ID: 17885911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. In vitro dermal absorption rate testing of certain chemicals of interest to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration: summary and evaluation of USEPA's mandated testing.
Fasano WJ; McDougal JN
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2008 Jul; 51(2):181-94. PubMed ID: 18501488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Toxicity assessment strategies, data requirements, and risk assessment approaches to derive health based guidance values for non-relevant metabolites of plant protection products.
Dekant W; Melching-Kollmuss S; Kalberlah F
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2010 Mar; 56(2):135-42. PubMed ID: 19883711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. U.S. EPA regulatory perspectives on the use of QSAR for new and existing chemical evaluations.
Zeeman M; Auer CM; Clements RG; Nabholz JV; Boethling RS
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 1995; 3(3):179-201. PubMed ID: 8564854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Application of QSARs and VFARs to the rapid risk assessment process at US EPA.
Moudgal CJ; Young D; Nichols T; Martin T; Harten P; Venkatapathy R; Stelma G; Siddhanti S; Baier-Anderson C; Wolfe M
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2008; 19(5-6):579-87. PubMed ID: 18853303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Substance-tailored testing strategies in toxicology: an in silico methodology based on QSAR modeling of toxicological thresholds and Monte Carlo simulations of toxicological testing.
Péry AR; Desmots S; Mombelli E
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2010 Feb; 56(1):82-92. PubMed ID: 19766156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Toxicological comments to the discussion about REACH.
Greim H; Arand M; Autrup H; Bolt HM; Bridges J; Dybing E; Glomot R; Foa V; Schulte-Hermann R
Arch Toxicol; 2006 Mar; 80(3):121-4. PubMed ID: 16411136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
